1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to a psychophysiological reflex training system and more particularly to an apparatus and method for testing and evaluating striking behavior associated with martial arts and other competitive/combative sports situations.
A variety of training methods have been used in the past to train striking behavior by means of reaction time type tasks. The goal of such methods is generally to present a (pseudo) random signal, to monitor the trainee's striking behavior, and then provide feedback to the trainee on his/her performance. The signal is usually the onset or offset of a visual stimulus, such as a light or group of lights, the onset or offset of an auditory stimulus, such as, a tone emitted from a buzzer or speaker, or the thrust of some physical object (such as a sword or shaft). When the trainee notices the presentation of the stimulus, he/she is supposed to perform some striking behavior. Striking behavior is usually a jab, punch, block, or kick, that results in impacting the target with varying degrees of speed and force. Two general parameters of striking behavior are usually evaluated and fed back to the trainee: simple reaction time and force of the strike. Simple reaction time is the length of delay in seconds between the presentation of a signal and the striking behavior. Force is the measured pressure at the target of the striking behavior.
2. Prior Art
The basic theory behind psychophysiological processes is explained with a physiological emphasis in West (Best and Taylor's Physiological Basis of Medical Practice. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1985; Chapters 3 and 4 and Section 9). An emphasis in the physiological processes is explained in Tart (States of Consciousness. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc. 1975; Chapter 2).
Current state-of-the-art approaches to systematic measurement of striking performance based on reaction times (Biglow et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,534,557; Goldfarb et al., U.S. Pat. No. 3,933,354; Schemmel, U.S. Pat. No. 4,088,315) have not estimated performance by taking into account the difficulty of the test. Previous approaches (including Taylor, U.S. Pat. No. 1,170,467; Hurley, U.S. Pat. No. 4,027,875; Kyo, U.S. Pat. No. 4,084,811; Winterbottom, U.S. Pat. No. 4,108,428; Tomko, U.S. Pat. No. 4,309,029; Anderson, U.S. Pat. No. 4,353,545 and U.S. Pat. No. 4,401,303; Hay et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,365,800; Neuberger, U.S. Pat. No. 4,440,400; Lebowitz, U.S. Pat. No. 4,564,192; and Struss, U.S. Pat. No. 4,565,366) have not used discriminative stimuli of varying complexity that require the trainee to mentally evaluate the occurrence of a pre-defined target sequence of varying difficulty before initiating and completing a pre-specified motor behavior, such as striking. The prior art patents have not utilized a method that incorporates numeric data about type of sensor/motor activity in order to estimate minimum response times and then evaluate performance. The knowledge of sensory/motor activity requires an understanding of psychophysiology which delineates the minimum delays in time associated with the type and length of sensory and motor pathways associated with a specific striking behaviors and on the specific instructions given to the trainee to perform that striking behavior. While the prior art (Bigelow et al.) has used force sensing, a fully digital approach has not been incorporated into a single device such as the present invention; nor have audio feedback proportional to degree of force or a vertical array of feedback lights been used. While the prior art (Goldfarb et al.) has used a general target figure with a complex back-lit switch or a complex body figure attached to a separate control panel (Schemmel), the present invention incorporates specific marked (not back-lit) cellular targets; by merely increasing the number of targets different positions can be incorporated into a test of increasing complexity rather than subdividing a single complex target or figure into smaller striking areas.